Lawyerly

GR No. 125346

2014-11-11

LEONEN, J.

However, it is well-settled that the power to fill in the details and manner as to the enforcement and administration of a law may be delegated to various specialized administrative agencies like the Secretary of Finance in this case.[170]

GR No. 125346

2014-11-11

LA SUERTE CIGAR v. CA

LEONEN, J.

Thus, rules and regulations implementing the law are designed to fill in the details or to make explicit what is general, which otherwise cannot all be incorporated in the provision of the law.[173] Such rules and regulations, when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law,[174] "deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts in view of the rule-making authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in their respective fields."[175] To be valid, a revenue regulation must be within the scope of statutory authority or standard granted by the legislature. Specifically, the regulation must (1) be germane to the object and purpose of the law;[176] (2) not contradict, but conform to, the standards the law prescribes;[177] and (3) be issued for the sole purpose of carrying into effect the general provisions of our tax laws.[178]

GR No. 175108

2013-02-27

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR

PERALTA, J.

Further, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,[14] this Court held that "gross receipts" refer to the total, as opposed to the net, income. These are, therefore, the total receipts before any deduction for the expenses of management.[15]

GR No. 187485

2013-02-12

CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

G.R. No. 187485 is a petition for review[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 25 March 2009 as well as the Resolution[3] promulgated on 24 April 2009 by the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA EB) in CTA EB No. 408. The CTA EB affirmed the 29 November 2007 Amended Decision[4] as well as the 11 July 2008 Resolution[5] of the Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Second Division) in CTA Case No. 6647. The CTA Second Division ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) to refund or issue a tax credit for P483,797,599.65 to San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) for unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) on purchases of capital goods and services for the taxable year 2001.

GR No. 160756

2010-03-09

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO

CORONA, J.

Statutes taxing the gross "receipts," "earnings," or "income" of particular corporations are found in many jurisdictions. Tax thereon is generally held to be within the power of a state to impose; or constitutional, unless it interferes with interstate commerce or violates the requirement as to uniformity of taxation.[50]

GR No. 184398

2010-02-25

SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Time and again, we have held that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the government. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken.[24] Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.

GR No. 167330

2009-09-18

PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS v. CIR

CORONA, J.

In construing this provision, we should be guided by the principle that tax statutes are strictly construed against the taxing authority.[38] This is because taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government.[39] Hence, tax laws may not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of their language, nor their operation enlarged so as to embrace matters not specifically provided.[40]

GR No. 166199

2009-04-24

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. CHRISTOPHER KORUGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The general rule in construing words and phrases used in a statute is that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.[33] However, a literal interpretation of a statute is to be rejected if it will operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contract the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole.[34] After all, statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.[35] Indeed, courts are not to give words meanings that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences.[36]

GR No. 176951

2008-11-18

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

Neither is the fifth item persuasive. The dissent admits that courts may resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction like the legislative history of the law if the literal application of the law results in absurdity, impossibility, or injustice.[165]

GR No. 176667

2007-11-22

ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF PASIG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The imposition of local business tax based on petitioner's gross revenue will inevitably result in the constitutionally proscribed double taxation taxing of the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing[26] inasmuch as petitioner's revenue or income for a taxable year will definitely include its gross receipts already reported during the previous year and for which local business tax has already been paid.

GR NO. 147375

2006-06-26

CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

TINGA, J.

The issues raised by the Commissioner have already been ruled upon in his favor by this Court in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals[10] and reiterated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation[11] and more recently in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of Commerce.[12] Consequently, the petition must be granted.

GR NO. 141212

2006-06-22

BENGUET CORPORATION v. CIR

CORONA, J.

Under our tax system, the CTA acts as a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[32] Accordingly, its findings of fact are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive on this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[33] Thus, such findings will not ordinarily be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of gross error or abuse on its part.[34]

GR NO. 154028

2005-08-29

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR

QUISUMBING, J.

We disagree with the CTA. In this case, the only issue is the amount of refund to be granted based on the amount of tax erroneously paid. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same.[15] Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund. In the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Ruling dated March 15, 1996, that the supply of steam by petitioner to NPC is exempt from VAT, petitioner has indubitably established its basis for claiming a refund.

GR No. 154028

2005-07-29

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR

QUISUMBING, J.

We disagree with the CTA. In this case, the only issue is the amount of refund to be granted based on the amount of tax erroneously paid. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same.[15] Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund. In the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Ruling dated March 15, 1996, that the supply of steam by petitioner to NPC is exempt from VAT, petitioner has indubitably established its basis for claiming a refund.

GR NO. 149636

2005-06-08

CIR v. BANK OF COMMERCE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The issues in this case had been raised and resolved by this Court in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[20] and CIR v. Solidbank Corporation.[21]

	GR No. 125346 2014-11-11	LA SUERTE CIGAR v. CA LEONEN, J.
However, it is well-settled that the power to fill in the details and manner as to the enforcement and administration of a law may be delegated to various specialized administrative agencies like the Secretary of Finance in this case.[170]
	GR No. 125346 2014-11-11	LA SUERTE CIGAR v. CA LEONEN, J.
Thus, rules and regulations implementing the law are designed to fill in the details or to make explicit what is general, which otherwise cannot all be incorporated in the provision of the law.[173] Such rules and regulations, when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law,[174] "deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts in view of the rule-making authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in their respective fields."[175] To be valid, a revenue regulation must be within the scope of statutory authority or standard granted by the legislature. Specifically, the regulation must (1) be germane to the object and purpose of the law;[176] (2) not contradict, but conform to, the standards the law prescribes;[177] and (3) be issued for the sole purpose of carrying into effect the general provisions of our tax laws.[178]
	GR No. 175108 2013-02-27	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR PERALTA, J.
Further, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,[14] this Court held that "gross receipts" refer to the total, as opposed to the net, income. These are, therefore, the total receipts before any deduction for the expenses of management.[15]
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
G.R. No. 187485 is a petition for review[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 25 March 2009 as well as the Resolution[3] promulgated on 24 April 2009 by the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA EB) in CTA EB No. 408. The CTA EB affirmed the 29 November 2007 Amended Decision[4] as well as the 11 July 2008 Resolution[5] of the Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Second Division) in CTA Case No. 6647. The CTA Second Division ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) to refund or issue a tax credit for P483,797,599.65 to San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) for unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) on purchases of capital goods and services for the taxable year 2001.
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
Statutes taxing the gross "receipts," "earnings," or "income" of particular corporations are found in many jurisdictions. Tax thereon is generally held to be within the power of a state to impose; or constitutional, unless it interferes with interstate commerce or violates the requirement as to uniformity of taxation.[50]
	GR No. 184398 2010-02-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Time and again, we have held that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the government. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken.[24] Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.
	GR No. 167330 2009-09-18	PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS v. CIR CORONA, J.
In construing this provision, we should be guided by the principle that tax statutes are strictly construed against the taxing authority.[38] This is because taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government.[39] Hence, tax laws may not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of their language, nor their operation enlarged so as to embrace matters not specifically provided.[40]
	GR No. 166199 2009-04-24	SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. CHRISTOPHER KORUGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The general rule in construing words and phrases used in a statute is that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.[33] However, a literal interpretation of a statute is to be rejected if it will operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contract the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole.[34] After all, statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.[35] Indeed, courts are not to give words meanings that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences.[36]
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Neither is the fifth item persuasive. The dissent admits that courts may resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction like the legislative history of the law if the literal application of the law results in absurdity, impossibility, or injustice.[165]
	GR No. 176667 2007-11-22	ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF PASIG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The imposition of local business tax based on petitioner's gross revenue will inevitably result in the constitutionally proscribed double taxation taxing of the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing[26] inasmuch as petitioner's revenue or income for a taxable year will definitely include its gross receipts already reported during the previous year and for which local business tax has already been paid.
	GR NO. 147375 2006-06-26	CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TINGA, J.
The issues raised by the Commissioner have already been ruled upon in his favor by this Court in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals[10] and reiterated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation[11] and more recently in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of Commerce.[12] Consequently, the petition must be granted.
	GR NO. 141212 2006-06-22	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
Under our tax system, the CTA acts as a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[32] Accordingly, its findings of fact are generally regarded as final, binding and conclusive on this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact.[33] Thus, such findings will not ordinarily be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of gross error or abuse on its part.[34]
	GR NO. 154028 2005-08-29	PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR QUISUMBING, J.
We disagree with the CTA. In this case, the only issue is the amount of refund to be granted based on the amount of tax erroneously paid. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same.[15] Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund. In the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Ruling dated March 15, 1996, that the supply of steam by petitioner to NPC is exempt from VAT, petitioner has indubitably established its basis for claiming a refund.
	GR No. 154028 2005-07-29	PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR QUISUMBING, J.
We disagree with the CTA. In this case, the only issue is the amount of refund to be granted based on the amount of tax erroneously paid. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same.[15] Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund. In the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Ruling dated March 15, 1996, that the supply of steam by petitioner to NPC is exempt from VAT, petitioner has indubitably established its basis for claiming a refund.
	GR NO. 149636 2005-06-08	CIR v. BANK OF COMMERCE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issues in this case had been raised and resolved by this Court in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[20] and CIR v. Solidbank Corporation.[21]

CIR v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION